Everyone agrees with us on climate change—especially when we’re wrong

By just about every measure, the vast majority of scientists in general—and climate scientists in particular—have been convinced by the evidence that human activities are altering the climate. However, in several countries, a significant portion of the public has concluded that this consensus doesn't exist. That has prompted a variety of studies aimed at understanding the large disconnect between scientists and the public, with results pointing the finger at everything from the economy to the weather. Other studies have noted societal influences on acceptance, including ideology and cultural identity.

Those studies have generally focused on the US population, but the public acceptance of climate change is fairly similar in Australia. There, a new study has looked at how societal tendencies can play a role in maintaining mistaken beliefs. The authors of the study have found evidence that two well-known behaviors—the "false consensus" and "pluralistic ignorance"—are helping to shape public opinion in Australia.

False consensus is the tendency of people to think that everyone else shares their opinions. This can arise from the fact that we tend to socialize with people who share our opinions, but the authors note that the effect is even stronger "when we hold opinions or beliefs that are unpopular, unpalatable, or that we are uncertain about." In other words, our social habits tend to reinforce the belief that we're part of a majority, and we have a tendency to cling to the sense that we're not alone in our beliefs.

Pluralistic ignorance is similar, but it's not focused on our own beliefs. Instead, sometimes the majority of people come to believe that most people think a certain way, even though the majority opinion actually resides elsewhere.

As it turns out, the authors found evidence of both these effects. They performed two identical surveys of over 5,000 Australians, done a year apart; about 1,350 people took the survey both times, which let the researchers track how opinions evolve. Participants were asked to describe their own opinion on climate change, with categories including "don't know," "not happening," "a natural occurrence," and "human-induced." After voicing their own opinion, people were asked to estimate what percentage of the population would fall into each of these categories.

In aggregate, over 90 percent of those surveyed accepted that climate change was occurring (a rate much higher than we see in the US), with just over half accepting that humans were driving the change. Only about five percent felt it wasn't happening, and even fewer said they didn't know. The numbers changed only slightly between the two polls.

The false consensus effect became obvious when the researchers looked at what these people thought that everyone else believed. Here, the false consensus effect was obvious: every single group believed that their opinion represented the plurality view of the population. This was most dramatic among those who don't think that the climate is changing; even though they represent far less than 10 percent of the population, they believed that over 40 percent of Australians shared their views. Those who profess ignorance also believed they had lots of company, estimating that their view was shared by a quarter of the populace.

Among those who took the survey twice, the effect became even more pronounced. In the year between the surveys, they respondents went from estimating that 30 percent of the population agreed with them to thinking that 45 percent did. And, in general, this group was the least likely to change its opinion between the two surveys.

But there was also evidence of pluralistic ignorance. Every single group grossly overestimated the number of people who were unsure about climate change or convinced it wasn't occurring. Even those who were convinced that humans were changing the climate put 20 percent of Australians into each of these two groups.

In the end, the false consensus effect is swamped by this pluralistic ignorance. Even though everybody tends to think their own position is the plurality, those who accept climate change is real still underestimate how many people share their views. Meanwhile, everyone overestimates the self-labelled "skeptic" population.

The authors suggest that this could, in part, be a result of the media's tendency to always offer two opposing opinions, even on issues where one is a fringe belief. They also point out that it would be good to perform a similar study in other nations where the dynamics of public belief are different.

The authors suggest that this could, in part, be a result of the media's tendency to always offer two opposing opinions, even on issues where one is a fringe belief.

I really don't like this. I get that it is supposed to make the media "fair" and "balanced", but it gives undue attention. Not all stories have two sides, science isn't an argument. This is like giving the other side in the "sky is blue" debate. There is no debate! Just people that are living in reality and delusional people.

Are the survey questions available somewhere? I know of very few people (fringe or not) who think that a) there hasn't been warming and b) that there isn't a consensus of the scientists. What is debated is the a) the amount of human involvement and b) whether the changes amount to a threat or not.

The authors suggest that this could, in part, be a result of the media's tendency to always offer two opposing opinions, even on issues where one is a fringe belief.

I really don't like this. I get that it is supposed to make the media "fair" and "balanced", but it gives undue attention. Not all stories have two sides, science isn't an argument. This is like giving the other side in the "sky is blue" debate. There is no debate! Just people that are living in reality and delusional people.

Fair comment there. If anything that highlights the disjunction between the news media and the scientific communities - in particular in developed countries. Also the news media like to portray themselves as the best qualified group to brige the gap between the scientific communities and the general public - sometimes they do it well, sometimes (okay, often) they miss the mark by miles.

I was reading an article recently that highlighted the fact that in developing countries less coverage is given to "climate change denial" arguments within the local news media - the concern for "balance" in the news media is outweighed by common sense it would seem.

I'm actually surprised that 90% of Australians believe the climate is changing.

I think the reason I wouldn't have put the figure that high is that the media in Australia seems to spend just as long interviewing climate skeptics as covering climate change.

A couple of years ago, I actually complained to the ABC about their repeated interviews with three prominent (and unqualified) climate skeptics, and their response was astonishing. They claimed that they were required, as part of their charter, to present a balance of opinions on "any contentious issues".

I pressed them on why they continued to interview the same shrill skeptics over and over again, and the response was that they were the only "experts" they could find who were willing to present that opinion. Since the ABC feels the need to interview skeptics in response to any mainstream climate coverage, a handful of skeptics ended up with a lot of airtime to air their views.

When the media insists on presenting a 50:50 balance of of opinion on an issue where the public opinion is closer to 90:10, then it is no wonder that public perceptions are skewed.

Are the survey questions available somewhere? I know of very few people (fringe or not) who think that a) there hasn't been warming and b) that there isn't a consensus of the scientists. What is debated is the a) the amount of human involvement and b) whether the changes amount to a threat or not.

Just read the post after your own as counter-evidence on point B.

It's getting harder to deny point A but I'm sure someone will step up and do it here pretty soon. Lately it's more "but it's been going down over the last X years" than "it never rose at all".

Studies like this start with the premise that some particular opinion is untrue and unjustified, and look for reasons why people hold it.

From the point of view of the man on the street AGW looks like a big con. "There's a catastrophe coming in ten years. Give us all your money and we'll do a bunch of useless things to try to prevent it."

Way to prove the article. According to http://www.gallup.com/poll/153608/Globa ... inter.aspx the majority believes the effects of climate change have already begun, that the issue is at least as serious as presented if not more so, that human activity is the primary cause, and that there is a scientific consensus.

These are, in fairness, slender majorities, and there are significant numbers who disagree. However, the claim that the average person believes it is a con is simply incorrect. That is, however, what you might be expected to believe if you surrounded yourself exclusively with Republicans, since the average Republican does believe climate change is exaggerated.

Are the survey questions available somewhere? I know of very few people (fringe or not) who think that a) there hasn't been warming and b) that there isn't a consensus of the scientists. What is debated is the a) the amount of human involvement and b) whether the changes amount to a threat or not.

Just read the post after your own as counter-evidence on point B.

you've got to give Royalkin credit for disproving that point with such timeliness and alacrity.

Quote:

It's getting harder to deny point A but I'm sure someone will step up and do it here pretty soon. Lately it's more "but it's been going down over the last X years" than "it never rose at all".

exactly. it's become increasingly untenable to claim the planet hasn't been warming, to the point only the craziest elements in internet comment threads and our legislative bodies are willing to claim such a thing.

By just about every measure, the vast majority of scientists in general—and climate scientists in particular—have been convinced by the evidence that human activities are altering the climate.

Part of the problem among our circle has been this. Some have been so boastful in their arguments as to push the idea that humans are *the only* factor in climate change. This, I believe, represents a vast overestimation of, or esteem in, the human presence. Science has shown that climate change has happened before and will happen again without our paltry contributions. We are not the Earth. Once we couch the argument in more realistic and *scientific* terms, we may be more likely to convince others of the contributions we *do* make to climate change. Contributions we may mitigate. And, indeed, contributions we may not except by dying off.

Maybe we simply like to associate with those we agree?Who ever thought that the threat of climate change would suddenly spark people into caring for the planet apparently was quite misguided. In my opinion, there are much better methods of convincing people to take stewardship in this planet, namely cute animals caught in our trash.

Wrong. There is consensus. Consensus does not mean there are not other people with a different viewpoint. It means "A whole bunch of knowledge people think that this is true."

The fact that a significant number of other scientists working in a relevant field don't agree (even if this were accurate) doesn't mean there isn't a general consensus. The term reflects broad agreement or agreement with a series of statements rather than agreement on every nuanced fact.

"The earth has had vast epochs of climatological variance in the past, and will continue to into the vast future."

Yes.

"Human activity is infinitecimal in long range plans"

Why do you think this?

There are more people living, breathing, and excreting right now than ever before by multiple orders of magnitude. This impacts the environments in which those people live. Impact enough of the environment on a large enough scale and you begin to impact the weather. Humans have been reshaping their environments to meet their personal desires since the Stone Age.

We changed the water flow pattern and, in so doing, changed the environment. Now, farmers use fertilizers to compensate.

So if we all agree that humans can definitively reshape the environment in the small scale, why do you reject the idea that we could be doing so at a large scale? Small changes, over time, result in large discrepancies. That's precisely what's going on here.

Just a question to the Believers: do people really expect the BRIC to surrender job growth and social stability in return for lower carbon emissions and higher energy prices?

I expect our descendants to have a planet where they can live without pressure domes and space suits. This isn't about economic growth. It's about the future of life on this planet. It's a little bigger than the stock ticker. Besides, the economy will be destroyed first if we enter runaway global warming. It makes perfect economic sense to keep the biosphere alive and well.

Like someone said, this is about science, not politics or belief or debate or whatever else was ushered into the process. Reality check: science isn't what mass media are reporting. I'd wager a guess that the deniers don't know a damn thing about climate science, or probably any science. They think they know because they read a mass media article here and there. That's not science.

Are the survey questions available somewhere? I know of very few people (fringe or not) who think that a) there hasn't been warming and b) that there isn't a consensus of the scientists. What is debated is the a) the amount of human involvement and b) whether the changes amount to a threat or not.

Just read the post after your own as counter-evidence on point B.

It's getting harder to deny point A but I'm sure someone will step up and do it here pretty soon. Lately it's more "but it's been going down over the last X years" than "it never rose at all".

Yes, I remember when it was "There is no warming."Then "There's warming, but not a significant amount."Then "Ok, significant but not man-made."Now we seem to starting the transition period to "Ok it's significant and man-made, but we shouldn't bother trying to stop it anyway."

I guess this article explains why small minorities don't change their minds even against the bulk of the public and scientific community: they don't actually believe they're a minority.

There is no concensus! There are plenty of highly educated and scholared scientists who completely disagree with this "theory". Stating something as a fact doesn't make it so.

The earth has had vast epochs of climatological variance in the past, and will continue to into the vast future. Human activity is infinitecimal in long range plans, anyone saying otherwise has an agenda, or are blindly following in obedience.

In fact, there are very few actually qualified actual climate scientists who dispute the reality and anthropogenic cause of climate change. You've got Richard Lindzen (MIT), and... coming up empty here.

Many of the names that get attached to climate skepticism are wrongly attributed. Roger Pilke Sr., for example, accepts anthropogenic climate change, but disagrees about the role of CO2 relative to other forcing factors. Similar disagreements abound on details like the role of clouds and aerosols. Unfortunately the skeptic community likes to latch onto these disagreements and use them to suggest that the basic phenomenon is still substantially in doubt.

Then you've got the other common skeptic tactic, which is to cite "experts" who are not really experts in climate science. There are a number of meteorologists who fall into this camp. Weather and climate are NOT the same thing. Another example was the ludicrous letter that the Wall Street Journal published last year, signed by 16 "experts". Lindzen was just about the only climatologist on the list, a list which also included people like Burt Rutan. Burt Rutan is a brilliant areospace engineer, but he's also a libertarian ideologue and he is NOT a climate expert - he's just opinionated, and his opinion is informed by his ideology.

Are the survey questions available somewhere? I know of very few people (fringe or not) who think that a) there hasn't been warming and b) that there isn't a consensus of the scientists. What is debated is the a) the amount of human involvement and b) whether the changes amount to a threat or not.

Just read the post after your own as counter-evidence on point B.

It's getting harder to deny point A but I'm sure someone will step up and do it here pretty soon. Lately it's more "but it's been going down over the last X years" than "it never rose at all".

Yes, I remember when it was "There is no warming."Then "There's warming, but not a significant amount."Then "Ok, significant but not man-made."Now we seem to starting the transition period to "Ok it's significant and man-made, but we shouldn't bother trying to stop it anyway."

I guess this article explains why small minorities don't change their minds even against the bulk of the public and scientific community: they don't actually believe they're a minority.

You forgot the last stage: "It's happened, but there wasn't anything we could have done to prevent it."

At the last election there was not enought seats gained by either party to form government. In order to form government each side had to gain the support of the Greens and a few independents. Labor achieved this but the Coalition did not.

In order to gain support of the Greens Labor had to rethink their previously tossed climate change policies. In the end a Carbon Tax was proposed and later passed and implemented.

In reaction the Coalition and climate change deniers organized a rally called the Convoy of No Confidence. In which truck convoys from all over Australia on would converge on parliment. The convoy occurred but the numbers that turned up were insignificant. Radio shock Alan Jones said that the police had held up most of the convoy but this was found out to be a lie.

The rally's stopped and the fight became political. Julia Gillard our Prime Minister was called a liar because of a previous promise not to bring in a carbon tax. The opposition leader claimed that disaster would befall the Australian economy when the Tax was introduced in July. Support from certain US think tanks like the IPA also hammered on the governments policies. July came and went and the economy did not collapse and now the opposition has gone quiet on the carbon tax.

There are still those who oppose the Tax but they are a minority. However if you ask climate change deniers they think they are the majority and the government has illegally passed the carbon tax.

If you start your study convinced that the people who disagree with you are irrational, you will find irrational reasons for their beliefs.

I agree. I think you've proved your point beyond a doubt with your: "It's all a big conspiracy to leach money from us/the government."

bwake wrote:

*I* think that stick points both ways. Kettle, meet pot.

Studies like this start with the premise that some particular opinion is untrue and unjustified, and look for reasons why people hold it.

From the point of view of the man on the street AGW looks like a big con. "There's a catastrophe coming in ten years. Give us all your money and we'll do a bunch of useless things to try to prevent it."

Of course, ["http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php"]these scientists[/url] must be delusional, too.

oh yeah. the list of unverified, duplicate, mostly unqualified, often deceased and frequently fictional signatories, circulated with an article dishonestly presented as being a peer-reviewed article from PNAS, courtesy of the creationists and AIDS denialists at the Oregon Institute.

Quote:

All 31, 000+ of them.

it's also worth noting that of the millions, if not tens of millions of people meeting the criteria necessary to sign the petition, they still only found at most 30k to sign their petition.

are you sure you want to bring these guys into the conversation? [edit: i see you decided you didn't. probably a wise choice ]

it's also worth noting that of the millions, if not tens of millions of people meeting the criteria necessary to sign the petition, they still only found at most 30k to sign their petition.

are you sure you want to bring these guys into the conversation? [edit: i see you decided you didn't. probably a wise choice ]

Anyone bringing up that paltry number of signatures (of which the only eligibility was a science degree [as opposed to an arts degree]) obviously doesn't have a clue what percentage that constitutes.

For example in 2001 in the US there were 5,580,200 employed scientists, technicians and engineers.Even without considering the 11 year gap, the unemployed science degree holders, and science degree holders in other jobs, 31,000 is just 0.56% of all people eligible to sign the petition.